PureBasic Forums - English

Hello Purebasic users,

I am new to these forums and the reason for my post is to get some feedback about what PureBasic users are looking for as far as third party support.

I am a long time Powerbasic third party developer and with all the trouble that PowerBasic is experiencing (as a company) I am looking into alternate development tools based on Basic to use and to support. I have over one and half decades of WIN32 API experience and am one of the longer lasting third party developers of PowerBasic addons. Now I need to expand into other areas and PureBasic is one of the more likeable areas to consider.

So what do I do ?

I build GUI tools, from visual designers to a complete GUI engine. You can learn more about my software at my web site: http://cwsof.com

My experience with BASIC dates back to the 1980's. I was writing software in Basic in the days of the Commodore 64, CPM computers (came before DOS computers), etc. I had a family friendly video game published in the Compute Gazette magazine (for Commodore 64) back in the late 1980's. I was using a Basic compiler on the C64 (Abacus). I also wrote my own compiler just so I could write the video game. Learned 6502 machine language to accomlish this.

In the 1980's I wrote business software for local businesses using GWBasic on CPM, QBasic and then Microsoft QuickBasic on IBM compatible PC's. I have written quite a number of custom applications over the years for business. I dabbled in all sorts of Basic over the years including CA Realizer, GFA Basic, Visual Basic 1.0, 2.0 and 5.0 pro. Over 14 years ago I moved to PowerBasic and didn't look back. I am an experienced WIN32 API programmer and my GUI engine is being used by a number of major companies building software being used by major companies like Chevron, Disney, and major TV shows.

PureBasic is a top candidate for me to branch out to with my tools. Powerbasic is in flux and far as I am concerned possibly a failed company. Now don't get me wrong. I am not a PowerBasic basher. Despite Bob Zales poor choices in some business aspects, he was one of the best compiler designers ever and others could learn a thing or two from how he built his compilers. They are rock solid and that is what I expect from the tools I work with. That said, PureBasic seems one of the better supported Basic languages and it deserves notice, which is why my company is checking it out to see if it is worth supporting.

So what kind of things do I develop ?

Many of the indie Basics on the web tend to cator to game development. While I am not averse to game development, my experience is with business software development and that is my primary target. My goal is to push Basic out of the background of languages like C++ to demonstrate it is a viable language for quality commercial software development.

My current GUI engine, was built using PowerBasic. The GUI engine replaces the need to use the Windows API directly. While PowerBasic had a built in GUI command set, it was very limited and to be honest years behind what my GUI engine does. The current version is a set of DLL's which total about 1 megabyte in size. In those DLL's the engine handles forms, all the basic controls, most of the common controls and much more. It has an event engine built in to make working with controls easier. It has subclassing and superclassing built in. It supports customizing controls via ownerdraw (ie. menus, buttons, labels, listbox, listview and tab control), via customdraw (listview, treeview) and even customizing the common dialogs. It supports normal help file display and HTML help files. It supports tray icons, popu menus, tooltips (and customizing tooltips), threads, multi-monitor support, theme support (drawing using themes), a component model (forms with controls that act as standalone controls themselves), has a graphic engine and print engine.

One of the most exciting features is the drag and drop engine. One of the biggest problems many indie Basic language developers have is building a visual designer. PowerBasic had the same problem. My GUI engine has this built in. You can use it to build a visual designer. It has its own drag handle control built in. It supports a snap to grid. You can create a designer which supports dragging hundreds of objects (controls) at one time.

My GUI engine has its own graphic engine which includes 22 image filters, low level DIB support, image rotation (draw rotated, scale and alphablend an image all at one time). It has a 2D Sprite engine built in which does not require DirectX. It is based on the GDI and quite fast. It works on all versions of Windows from Windows 95 to Windows 8.

It also has a 3D scripting language built in based on OpenGL. It supports the STL 3D model format which is for high polygon models. Unlike game formats which often use low polygon count models which fake realism via shaders and texture maps, my engine draws high polygon 3D models and with the need for texture maps. How about drawing models with a couple million polygons ? Does it and fast.

There are also a number of custom controls built in. Drag Handle control, Masked Edit, MCI control (for multimedia), Turtle Graphics control (vector graphics), Canvas control (DIB engine and sprite engine), glCanvas control (3D OpenGL based graphics), Files Listbox control and a Properties Listbox control. It has 3D buttons built in (via ownerdraw). It has a simplified (easy) ownerdraw engine and an advanced ownerdraw engine.


The GUI engine also has an autoresize engine built in (define attributes for controls and form automatically resizes them when the form is sized).

It has a drag and drop engine for the listview and treeview controls so dragging items is easy, even support autoscrolling.


The command set is about 900 GUI commands.

All of this in a small runtime, which can run on Windows 95 to Windows 8.

Not sure whether it could be ported to PureBasic or not, but at the minimum some key parts could possibly be ported so it would work.

I have basically no experienced with Purebasic so this is a new venture for me. But it worth seeing if I can build some tools for Purebasic users.

Hello C Boss, welcome to the PureBasic forum.

Well, it might not be a surprise that a lot of what EZGUI can do, PureBasic does already. So the deciding factor I guess would be, which is best. However, PureBasic is firmly in the cross-platform camp (Mac/Linux/Windows) and it sounds like EZGUI is Windows only?

Dependency on a run-time? It's one of the reasons why a PureBasic developer might choose PureBasic over, say, VB.net. It is nice to be able to compile a stand-alone exe with PureBasic.

PureBasic, undoubtedly brilliant, is not perfect. If your Print Engine can be cross-platform, I'm sure that would be of interest.

A DLL for a library is fairly normal in the Windows world, so it would make sense that EZGUI's functions are in a DLL. ProGUI was also Windows only. Many of the third-party tools and libraries for PureBasic are Windows only. So, what C. Boss is proposing is something the community has embraced before. Unfortunately, EZGUI was designed for a language that never progressed past the 90s (my words, not C. Boss's words) and there is definitely some redundancy in what EZGUI provides and what PureBasic natively provides.

I think C. Boss is asking what people would like to see in a third-party tool for PureBasic, and is not necessarily intending a direct port of EZGUI. Perhaps there are features that EZGUI has, that people would be interested in and a modified version of those features could be released for PureBasic?

Perhaps there are features that EZGUI does not have and PureBasic does not have that people would like to see made available for PureBasic?

C. Boss is a very skilled coder and extremely capable when it comes to dealing with the Windows API. As an EZGUI user, as well as a user of his other products, I can say his products are rock-solid. I look forward to seeing his contributions in third-party support for PureBasic.

I doubt that my GUI engine would be best suited to PureBasic, as is (it is windows only), but the technology I use could be ported for use with PureBasic, say in static libraries (or even source code).

One thing I do have which is useful is the ability to build a much higher level visual designer to push the limits of that. I could design it to generate pure Purebasic code.

My Sprite engine is a proprietary engine which is low level and does not require say DirectX and that could possibly be ported. It was not designed with games in mind, but instead was designed for building animated controls for business purposes.

I don't know if anything I currently have would be useful, but if I can design what I did for PowerBasic, surely I should be able to design similar things for use with PureBasic.

I am only "testing the waters" with PureBasic, looking for new markets and new development tools.

But so you can appreciate that what I design may be useful, there are a number of commercial applications being used by big companies that were built using my GUI framework. To better appreciate this, here are some examples:

Watch this video of a big Chevrom project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9fvdfE59_Y

Pause the video at about 4 minutes and 33 seconds and notice the software on a laptop which is controlling their equipment. The software was written using PowerBasic and my GUI framework, by one of my customers, Fathom Systems ( http://www.fathomsystems.co.uk/ ). So here is an example of a huge company like Chevron using software built upon my GUI framework.

This next customer of mine has written real time video editing software, which is used by many well known TV shows, using PowerBasic and my GUI framework:
http://www.srole.com/WRSDesigns/ddr.html

Here is one hobby programmer who has taken his hobby and turned into a real software business using my tools:

http://www.radio3k.com/
http://www.ontopsystems.com/

Here is another hobby programmer who took his hobby and turned into a commercial business using my tools:

http://www.nostalgiabaseball.com/

Here is a big commercial company, Clearcom, who sells wireless communication hardware. The company who actually created their Tempest systems, is one of my customers and he used my GUI framework to develop his software which controls his hardware:

http://www.clearcom.com/support/t-desk-software
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC3UH1wBcL0

From hobby programmers too commercial companies, there are good number who write software based on my GUI framework.

I think that should at minimum qualify me to build UI tools for use with PureBasic. Not sure whether PureBasic is up to my needs, but I sure want to give it fair chance.

C Boss wrote:Hello Purebasic users,{snip}
PureBasic is a top candidate for me to branch out to with my tools. Powerbasic is in flux and far as I am concerned possibly a failed company. Now don't get me wrong. I am not a PowerBasic basher. Despite Bob Zales poor choices in some business aspects, he was one of the best compiler designers ever and others could learn a thing or two from how he built his compilers. They are rock solid and that is what I expect from the tools I work with. That said, PureBasic seems one of the better supported Basic languages and it deserves notice, which is why my company is checking it out to see if it is worth supporting.

One of my customers contacted Fred asking him to give me a free license (as long as I support PureBasic) to I can see what I can do for PureBasic users. If I find that it is a viable tool for the kind of development I do and it is worth supporting, I will be happy to pay for the license.{snip}

Welcome Boss.
The command set documentation allows a quick check see if it PureBasic is a viable alternative and worth supporting.
I am fairly confident that the vast majority of the Windows commands work as advertised.
I am very curious if you could disclose the other top candidate BASICs?
Thanks.

C Boss wrote:Hello Purebasic users,

I am new to these forums and the reason for my post is to get some feedback about what PureBasic users are looking for as far as third party support.

C Boss wrote:I have basically no experienced with Purebasic so this is a new venture for me. But it worth seeing if I can build some tools for Purebasic users.

Hi Chris

As you know, I'm in the process of converting my PowerBasic/Ezgui applications to PureBasic, and in general it's working out very well. However, there are a few areas where PureBasic could be helped by some additional business oriented features. Printing is one area of PureBasic that really needs some work. So a full-featured, cross-platform print engine might be something for you to look at.

In order to use the same syntax on all platforms, the language features are often dumbed down, so it's sometimes difficult to do certain things. Also, some of the features and data types, commonly found in other Basics, are missing and have to be "simulated" using macros or custom code. However, I haven't found any of this to be a major problem, and I'm more than happy with the language. In fact, PureBasic has many features not found in PowerBasic, so things sort of balance out.

Rod G.

IdeasVacuum wrote:However, PureBasic is firmly in the cross-platform camp (Mac/Linux/Windows)

It is also important to note that PureBasic is 32bit + 64bit on each platform.

We are at the transition right now, where 32bit OS are becoming more and more deprecated
and marked as "legacy 32bit", for example some new Linux distributions (example).
New PureBasic users should made themselves comfortable with 64bit from the beginning on,
not using 32bit longs everywhere, just because they are accustomed to it. Very important
for the near future.
In addition to 32bit and 64bit versions on 3 platforms, each edition compiles in ASCII and
UNICODE mode. Makes 12 different modes.

PB comes with a library SDK, so it is also possible to write add-on-libraries that get directly
linked to the final executable. Library functions support variable argument counts, whereas
PB source supports modules. Support for using external DLLs and static libraries is also available with
the 'Library' lib and trough "Import" statements. Many choices for library developers...

Until you get your free license, you could use the free demo version of PureBasic. Read the help file
for the libraries and try some examples. PB has also an integrated visual designer. Just try it, too.
There are for sure some things that could be improved by 3rd party add-on developers.


In general, going Windows-only, and old WinAPI only, may not be very future-proof, in the long run.

@C. Boss:
To be honest, your first posting here sounds weird to some extend. You may think you deserve a free version
of PureBasic, just to support it. That's not the case. We all bought PB ourselves. And we, the PureBasic users, do it all the time.
We developed add-ons over the last 13 years and we write Tipps & Tricks all time. Hundreds of codes were collected at http://www.purearea.net
and thousands of codes are collected here, within this holy forums. All for free. You are not the noble knight
freeing us from great suppression. You are the beginner here, the guy that has no clue about cross-platform programming.
Bow down, learn the PureBasic way, and make good stuff for PureBasic users. What you did before does not count much here.

Danilo,

I did not think I deserved a free license. I was only in the process of checking out PureBasic when one of my customers who also is a PureBasic user contacted Fred and mentioned I may start some PureBasic addon development and Fred offered the free license as long as I develop stuff for PureBasic with it.

If I find that PureBasic is worth investing time on to develop tools, then of course I would be very willing to purchase a license myself.

I did not request the offer. Fred simply made the offer from what my customer told me. I just checked my email one day and there is was in an email.

I am though not flowing with money I can throw away, so I make purchases very carefully. Recently purchase dark Basic Studio because it was very good deal and looked very interesting to me.

To give you and idea of the field of BASIC's out there which I have checked into a number of them:

http://basic.mindteq.com/index.php?i=full

I am also considering porting code to C or C++, possibly using a parser like BCX.

To be honest, I have been using PowerBasic for over 14 years and it will be very hard to replace. I don't need all the "bells and whistles" most Basic programmers need (like graphic stuff, UI commands, etc.) because I am very experienced with the WIN32 API. All that I can (and have) write myself. It is the core compiler and what I would call "core BASIC" based on the long standing standard created by Microsoft in the DOS days. Most Basics are a take off (core language I mean) of Microsofts QuickBasic. Some have built upon this very well expanding it sensibly, while others have products stranged hybrid languages that look more like C than Basic. To give a simple example:

Basic procedures should look like this:
But some of the strnage hybrids may do strange things like:
I have seen some where subroutines have to return a value, like a function, even though subroutines do not return values.

Long time BASIC programmers know what the proper syntax should be like.

It may seem a small thing to newer Basic programmers, but there really is a standard that was set decades ago.

Of course features which did not exist in early Basics, there is no standard to go by, but new features should try to have the look of original Basic.

The purpose of this is for language readability and code reuse. If ever different Basic flavor does its own thing with syntax, then Basic becomes a mess with no ability to move code between languages.

C++ is a good example. Even though there are many different C++ compilers, there are standards they try to go by. This is why some people can write code in C++ and compile it with multiple compilers. True it may not be perfect across all compilers, but there is a standard and the closer a compiler is to that standard the better.

You are the beginner here, the guy that has no clue about cross-platform programming.

Don't be so quick to put me in the newbie catagory. I may be new to PureBasic, but I have been programming long before some of the members on this forum may have been born and all with Basic.

Now Basic has grown as different platforms have come along, but core aspects of the language have not changed.

While cross platform sounds great, I know from experience that it is fraut with challenges and problems. This is one reason some major software companies have actually dropped cross platform support over the years. Back in the 1980's and early 1990's some major software was written to be both for Windows and the Mac. Such software rarely had a native look to it on either platform. Some companies realized that cross platform often lead to compromises and made the decision to simply support native development only, most likely Windows. Except in the mobile world, no other platform comes close to the number of users as does Windows have. In the business world Windows leads hands down.

Linux for years promise to be the next desktop but still has failed. True Linux has its place, but it is far fetched to think Linux will ever take the desktop away from Windows.

The Mac has made its dent in animation and video. Yet it still is a tiny player compared to Windows. Apple has made all of its money, not from the Mac, but from the IPhone, IPad and IPod. Building for mobile like IOS is a totally different world than building business software for the desktop (or laptop).

Now with all the interest in mobile today (everybody has smart phone and tablet), cross platform is the rage, but in the business world, Windows has been the core platform.

My primary interest is developing tools for building commercial quality software used in business and industry. Simply put, I am not a gamer. If one builds software for business, it is often better to build for Windows natively, than to build cross platform and it not quite be right on both platforms.

If few in the PureBasic world have any interest in the kind of tools I develop, I can live with that and move on, but I am looking to see if there is a market for high quality professional level tools here.

Consider for example what I have done with PowerBasic addons for example. My primary product is actually one of the more expensive of the PowerBasic addons. I normally sell it for $249, which is more expensive than the PowerBasic for Windows compiler. In the business world, that is small change if it makes a developer much more productive, but for many small, indie developers that is a lot of money. I am not catering to the hobby programmers who want stuff for real cheap, but to commercial developers who are writing stuff to be used in major industries. Now some of my customers are hobby programmers (as noted above), who maybe purchased my tools when on sale or actually took the plunge and paid full price. Some of turned their hobby into a business because of this.

I should also point out that the software tools I develop, unlike many I have seen on the web, are not based on any open source code or libraries. I have often seen interesting programming languages only to find major features of the languages are actually based on some existing open source engine or library. This is not wrong, but one must appreciate that if the developer did not write those original libraries they are in less in a position to be able to debug them or improve them. My company does not do this. I do not borrow or copy anything. My company does the research into the platform (in this case windows) to learn how to tap into the power of the OS and then builds all libraries from the ground up. For example, my Sprite engine is a proprietary one build by my company. My 3D engine is a proprietary one built by my company. This means I have complete control of the quality and reliability of the tools.

Reliability!

If there is one word that describes the mindset of my companies software is reliability. I build tools for commercial programmers who are also building software for businesses. In the business world one can ill afford buggy software. This comes at a price though. Quality comes first for me because my customers demand it.

Windows is the primary platform for businesses and just watch, you haven't seen anything yet when it comes to Windows tablets. Intel has finally gotten it right in the latest generation of SOC's and Microsoft is learning the importance of the desktop (back tracking on the Metro push). Small sized Windows tablets now really have the potential to make a real dent into mobile. The problem is that many Windows programmers are using managed languages (dot.net) which are bloated and don't know how to push the limits of these small windows tablets. Native coding is the only way and that is what I do and that is what I do best.

I do not know what kind of software the average PureBasic programmer writes yet, which is why I am trying to touch base with this community. But do not consider me a newbie as a programmer. I may take awhile to grasp some of the quirks of a different flavor of Basic, but that does not mean I am inexperienced by any means. In the Powerbasic community I have been pushing the limits of software development for years.

I just need to know what kind of tools PureBasic programmers, who write commercial software, are looking for. What areas do they need to tap into ? Are most building for cross platform or do most build for Windows primarily ? Are there any in this community who are writing apps for big companies ? Are any writing apps being used by major industries ?

PureBasic appears to be quite capable of being used for industry, but the real question is "is it" ?

That is what I need know.

C Boss wrote:Recently purchase dark Basic Studio because it was very good deal and looked very interesting to me.

Many here have sympathies for those who have felt the sting of Bamberware. You will find many victims of Dark Basic products here.

C Boss wrote:To give you and idea of the field of BASIC's out there which I have checked into a number of them:

http://basic.mindteq.com/index.php?i=full

And? All of those are either dead or not actively developed, or are simply scripting languages that are not really usable for real world use. Trust me when I say that PureBasic is the last actively developed and supported compiled BASIC. It is the only BASIC capable of, and proven for, real-world use in the 21st Century. No brag. Just fact.

C Boss wrote:To be honest, I have been using PowerBasic for over 14 years and it will be very hard to replace.

You can't really compare PowerBASIC and other compilers. PowerBASIC was a DOS compiler that never fully made the transition to Windows. Windows support was an after-thought and glued on with duct tape and bubble gum. I used Turbo BASIC and I used PowerBASIC up until version 2.1 which was my last version for many years. When I came back to the product after many years and purchased version 8 for Windows, what was being passed off as a 32-bit Windows compiler was a farce. Although it produced 32-bit code, the actual compiler was still 16-bit and would not work properly on 32-bit versions of Windows unless several tweaks were disabled because the 16-bit compiler could not properly handle long file names and did not adhere to Microsoft's own standards, as was pointed out to Mr. Zale with the links to relevant MSDN pages.

Because PowerBASIC was aimed at DOS programmers making the transition to Windows, its existence depended on the naivety of its users who were simply not experienced with Windows. As users have moved on to other languages, they have seen the curtain fall down on the proverbial Wizard of Oz, and have seen that the man behind the curtain in many ways was a shuckster. Since his death, the curtain has completely crumbled. Based on the new information released today about financial dealings, my personal opinion, is that is he were still alive he should be facing prison time for his activities. Unfortunately, he is dead and the person in question will likely never be able to recoup the approximately $160,000 he is rightfully owed.

PowerBASIC taught a lot of developers very bad habits, because it did not conform to industry standards. The default use of OLE strings was nothing short of asinine, because it made any DLL created with PowerBASIC completely useless with legitimate compilers, which completely defeats the purpose of creating a DLL in the first place. In its current version, 10.04, it is still a compiler that has not progressed past 1995. It does NOT properly support modern coding standards, it does not properly support modern versions of Windows, and it lacks basic things like proper image handling. Because PowerBASIC was so far behind the times, there was a niche for third-party developers like yourself to fill in the gap and provide wonderful tools like EZGUI. EZGUI helped provide to PowerBASIC users much of what most BASICs provide natively. This is no small feat, as PowerBASIC was severely behind the times. EZGUI helped bring PowerBASIC up to current standards. There were also other third-party vendors that tried to make PowerBASIC usable in modern times, and all of them were good products and each vendor did things in different ways, but still managed to make amazing contributions to PowerBASIC.

PowerBASIC was like Peter Pan, the little boy who never wanted to grow up. The competition all grew up. The competition grew up so much, that PowerBASIC was no longer legitimate competition because it was so far behind the times. PowerBASIC has no competitors for the simple reason there are not any Windows BASICs targeting people just making the switch from DOS to Windows, and if there were, PowerBASIC would still not be a good choice because Windows has changed too much from the 1995 Windows standards which PowerBASIC is based on.

Leaving PowerBASIC was a hard choice in the past for many people. Now people are leaving because they have no choice. To come from the 1995 era of programming and be plopped 19 years into the future is overwhelming. It is like waking up from a 19 year coma for some people. Not everybody will be able to step up their game and compete in the modern world, but the true coders will.

For PureBasic, there is definitely room for third-party vendors. There are several who have been selling their third-party tools and libraries for many years, and they keep them updated to support current versions of PureBasic (which is a must). Windows-only is doable in the PureBasic word for third-party vendors, but 32-bit only is simply not acceptable in the Windows world for third-party libraries. Keep in mind this is just the English forums, you also have the German forums and the French forums and there are a LOT of non-Windows users, whether Linux or OS X.

Although windows-only can work for third-party vendors, it doesn't work so well for indie developers, or even companies who produce software. From personal experience on contract work I have done in this past year for a defense contractor, I had to provide software that worked on Windows 7, OS X and Ubuntu. Companies are not solely using one OS anymore, and with so many cutting costs and enacting "Bring Your Own Desktop" programs, the personal laptops (and even tablets) employees are bringing to work run any of the three major OSes (Windows, OS X or Linux). So, for people here using PureBasic there is a need, and it is ever-increasing, for third-party libraries to support more than just Windows, as that is what they need to support with their software.

C Boss wrote:Long time BASIC programmers know what the proper syntax should be like.

Speaking as somebody who has been programming in BASIC since the mid 70s, and has had his own computer since '79, the idea that there is a BASIC standard is a pipe dream. Every variant seems to implement their own unique syntax changes, which is part of what makes each variant special in its own way. There would be no need for so many variants if they were all identical. Even in the heyday of BASIC, in the 70s-80s, each system had a unique BASIC and you often had to tweak code to get it to run on a different system. Much like Microsoft's bastardization of C++ in VisualC++/VisualStudio. If you use it, you will have issues working with other C++ compilers. At least with C++, there is a semblance of a standard. BASIC, has always been no-holds barred when it comes to syntax. Even Bob Zale destroyed the legacy of PowerBASIC by introducing OOP/COM and trying to make PowerBASIC a C++ wannabe language in an effort to retain users who were leaving for compilers that better supported modern versions of Windows. Bob was not alone as there were many BASIC/C/C++ Hybrid languages. Some good, some bad. Few got the hybridization "right". Bob missed it by a mile.

Coding standards have changed since the 70s and 80s. Even leaving out OOP, what may have been acceptable as a standard even in the 90s is not acceptable now. There is no right or wrong answer, each language needs to use what works best for them and their demographic. If you are targeting legacy systems, legacy standards from the 70s and 80s would be ideal. If you are targeting the 21st century, then it is best to forget the "perceived" standards of the old days.

While cross platform sounds great, I know from experience that it is fraut with challenges and problems. This is one reason some major software companies have actually dropped cross platform support over the years. Back in the 1980's and early 1990's some major software was written to be both for Windows and the Mac. Such software rarely had a native look to it on either platform. Some companies realized that cross platform often lead to compromises and made the decision to simply support native development only, most likely Windows. Except in the mobile world, no other platform comes close to the number of users as does Windows have. In the business world Windows leads hands down.

Your circular logic is eating itself because proper third-party tools simply did not exist back then. Now it is easily possible to write cross-platform software and have it look native on each platform. Write once, compile for whichever platform you need.

Linux for years promise to be the next desktop but still has failed. True Linux has its place, but it is far fetched to think Linux will ever take the desktop away from Windows.

As of 2013, Linux is the most widely used operating system for all platforms combined. Chrome Books have outsold Windows 8 laptops at Amazon (America's largest online retailer) for two Christmases in a row. Consumers are making the move from Windows (consumers rarely buy desktops now) to other platforms. Consumers, are what has always driven the market and why every manufacturer is rushing to produce new Chrome Books.

Unfortunately, you have developers who have been brainwashed over the years to think Windows is the only solution. Take a look around you when you are out and about. All of those tablets, and mobile phones you see? How many are running Windows? Out of all the laptops you see in your local coffee shop or McDonalds. how many are MacBooks? Mobile is where the industry is moving to and traditional desktops are dying for the consumer market. Consumers drive the market and innovation.

The Mac has made its dent in animation and video.

This isn't the 90s and your comment shows a lack of knowledge on this subject. Mac can do anything Windows systems can do.

but in the business world, Windows has been the core platform.

Keywords: has been. Even tablets are appearing in major companies now, whether work issued or through "bring your own desktop" programs. Companies are scrambling to support iOS and Android.

My primary interest is developing tools for building commercial quality software used in business and industry.

Which is what many here, do. Build software which is widely used in business and industry.

Simply put, I am not a gamer.

Few here are.

If one builds software for business, it is often better to build for Windows natively, than to build cross platform and it not quite be right on both platforms.

You really need to get out of the 90s mentality. It is detrimental to you. Building cross-platform is still building natively for each platform. Proper APIs are used on each platform. Things may look different because of the different GUI systems, but will work the same.

This is not wrong, but one must appreciate that if the developer did not write those original libraries they are in less in a position to be able to debug them or improve them.

Being open source, they are in a perfect position to debug them and improve them.

Windows is the primary platform for businesses and just watch, you haven't seen anything yet when it comes to Windows tablets. Intel has finally gotten it right in the latest generation of SOC's and Microsoft is learning the importance of the desktop (back tracking on the Metro push).

Intel believes in the future of tablets and Windows on tablets so much, that last week Intel shut down their AppUp store. They literally could not pay developers to make apps for tablet versions of Windows. Windows has an 11 year history of failure in the tablet world, and TIFKAM sealed the fate for the current generation of Windows tablets.

Microsoft has finally gotten wise and will be consolidating their tablet and phone OS into one. It will fail, too, let's not fool ourselves. But, Windows is no longer the only player in any market and consumers have been waking up to this fact over the past few years.

Small sized Windows tablets now really have the potential to make a real dent into mobile.

Since consumers have rejected TIFKAM, there is not an interest in Windows tablets in the consumer market.

PureBasic appears to be quite capable of being used for industry, but the real question is "is it" ?

Yes, without a doubt.

I have to respectively disagree with my friend her about some aspects of PowerBasic.

The use of OLE strings was ingenious (VB uses it internally, but just not for calls to DLLs). It allowed the language to have one of the most powerful string engines in the software industry.

You have to appreciate my background as a developer. I am not a game developer. For years I developed custom software for local businesses. It is one thing to build an app which you will sell to thousands, but another when you build a one of a kind app for a business. What few appreciate is that the world revolves around business software, not consumer based software. This is why Windows is the primary platform. Sure, maybe not for consumers so much any more, but in the business world it is all about Windows.

Business software, not only needs to be able to written quickly, but it needs to be able to do a lot of complex tasks. It is not like throwing together a game app with a bunch of pretty graphics. It is a matter of doing a lot of complex and mundane work. Now the PowerBasic implimentation of its string engine, while not the standard for many languages, has been a boon to many developers who write software for business and industry. PowerBasic was not designed so it could follow all industry standards (while it does support core ones like DLL's etc.), but it was designed to get work done.

This is also why I strongly support a common, standard syntax for Basic. I can use code I wrote 20 years even today in PowerBasic and some of that code does valuable work.

Now some may take issue with this and I understand. But for a moment, in your mind list all the types of software you have written and what they do. How much of it has been for business ? How much of it was custom and for business and needed to be developed quickly ? What kind of business data did your software have to deal with ?

Now consider my background, when I was writing custom software for businesses. I wrote software for the following:

- POS for furniture store
- POS of video rental store
- POS for auto repair shop
- estimating for auto repair shop
- job tracking, job estimating and shipping for custom machine shop
- data retrieval from manufacturing test machines
- quality control analysis of such data
- engineering software
- PBX maintainance software
- Accounts receivable, accounts payable for lumber supply store
- database for Sheriffs department

Now consider as a tool developer the kind of work some of my customers are doing , which I have to support in my tools:

- Wireless short range communications
- Robotic underwater unmanned vehicle control
- manufacturing software

and many others too long to list.

The kind of tasks my customers often face, require complex solutions.

This is why before I spend any time porting any of my tools to PureBasic or creating news for it, I need to get a good grasp of what kind of developers use PureBasic.

PowerBasic tended to appeal to a more business, industry type of developer. You would be surprised at where PowerBasic was being used for development. Not tasks which would very easily done in other languages, but tasks which were not so easy to do, even though seemingly mundane.

For example,

- are developers who cator to the banking industry using PureBasic ?
- are developer who cator to inhouse manufacturing software using PureBasic ?
- are developers who have to write mission critical software using PureBasic ?

Please understand my background and my perspective about development. There is usually a different solution for different software types, but my expertese and experience is with building software for business and industry. I want to know whether PureBasic is well suited to this and especially if it is currently being used for this.

The comment about PowerBasic uses of OLE for variable len strings betrays a lack of knowledge or experience in this particular area of software development which I do the most in. It may be true that OLE is not a standard among many languages. But PowerBasics string engine was not designed just so it follows industry standards. It was designed to get a specific job done and Basic programmers who date as far as I do, know how important extensive string support is to the kind of work Basic was used for.

Powerbasics string engine is unmatched in the industry when it comes to get work done.

That said, this does not mean Purebasic is bad or even weak. I am simply trying to get a grasp of the kind of programmers who use Purebasic to see whether a commercial developer of tools like myself would fill a valuable need. If not, I understand. Now I may be a long time BASIC programmer and for some even saying you are Basic programmer implies you are a novice programmer with little skill, but I have build business software for a couple decades which does important work and I have always been keen on performance of a language, even if it means I write something in assembler. I benchmark stuff to push my software to the maximum limit I am capable of. Software reliability and stability are far more important to me than a bunch of fancy features. Business software development requires very high standards in my book.

The backtrack that Microsoft is currently making with Windows 8.1 is a direct result of them realizing where their "bread and butter" comes from. Not from consumers, but from the enterprise.

Few realize how immersed the world is with Windows. Add to that embedded Windows and it is a huge platform which nothing else can compare to.

Go to Walmart and what do you see ? Dozens of computers all with Windows. Then one lone Chrome PC. So which platform is the biggest ?

Don't ask a computer programmer what OS he likes or uses ?

Ask people on the job, who are not that computer smart, but simply use the computer they have been given and simply know how to use the software the company provides and trains them on. Likely it isn't Linux. Most likely it is Windows.

Now some big players in the industry are pushing stuff like Android (the internet of things) for all sorts of devices. Why ? Because Android is better ? No because it is free.

Windows has a huge disadvantage in that it costs money. Free is always better right ? Wrong ? Despite Windows having to compete with the likes of Android and Linux which are free, it is still the most popular platform in business today, hands down.

Windows tablets are staring to make headway. The only reason Windows tablets have had a rough start is that most software today for Windows is not well written tfor touch and a lot of it is bloated and requires too powerful of hardware. Intel is catching up with its latest generation of SOC's and Microsoft is going back to native development as preferable over managed languages. Do not under estimate how the dynamics are beginning to change.

Recently you could buy the latest Dell 8 inch windows tablet for only $229 which is cheap. The price is coming down, the hardware is getting better. The only thing left is the software. Native coding is the only way to push the performance on mobile. One gets maximum performance using native coding.

Things are changing and good performing languages like PureBasic (PowerBasic also) have an opportunity to make big headway into software development for Windows tablets. This is why I am checking it out.

Please enlighten me. There are plenty of PureBasic users on these forums.

What kind of software are you writing for business and industry ?

I would love to see some examples of software being used by major companies ?

I really want to know !

Anybody using PureBasic to write commercial grade software for any big name companies or industries, which we would recognize ?

Anybody using PureBasic in the banking industry ?

In manufacturing ?

In education even ?

I am not asking, expecting to get a no. I am asking because I really want to see how far the language has gone in breaking into the business world.

C Boss wrote:Please enlighten me. There are plenty of PureBasic users on these forums.

What kind of software are you writing for business and industry ?

Some time ago I started a poll about the PureBasic user base in general: PureBasic Poll 2012. Note that it's about two years old (wow, how time flies!) so the results (from this post) might be a little outdated but could still be kind of enlightening...


P.S. If possible try to boil your posts down to an essence.